Seawinder Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 Building the Eduard kit with markings for WD-W in USAAF service in the Mediterranean, desert camouflage. She was an early Mk. IX that started life as a Mk. V. I've only been able to find one photo -- port-side view. Eduard's painting instructions show no wing walk lines, which seems correct to me given that she almost certainly started off in standard Day Fighter camouflage. Some profiles and built models, however, have the lines in place. What do people think? Thanks! Pip Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PatG Posted March 7 Share Posted March 7 Not withstanding the application of D-Day stripes I'd have thought that all Spitfires would have had the wing walk lines clearly evident in order to prevent 'Erks' from walking on the wrong bits and causing damage? Logically the theatre of operations would have had no bearing on this essential requirement. Just my best guess. Pat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seawinder Posted March 7 Author Share Posted March 7 4 hours ago, PatG said: Not withstanding the application of D-Day stripes I'd have thought that all Spitfires would have had the wing walk lines clearly evident in order to prevent 'Erks' from walking on the wrong bits and causing damage? Logically the theatre of operations would have had no bearing on this essential requirement. Just my best guess. Pat. From what I've read, wing walk lines were frequently painted over on planes repainted in desert camouflage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spitfire Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 Looking through other photos of USAAF Spitfires in the Med it is not that clear, the subjects seem to be heavily weathered on the upper wings, however there are several close up shots of Mk.V's and IX's with wing walkway markings. However as the subject was a converted Mk.V it gets even more interesting as the earlier Mk. V walkways may be present. I built ES276 WD*D Mk. V with wing markings. I only briefly looked through my American Spitfire Camouflage and Markings part 1 and 2 books though so not an exhaustive search. Cheers Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 (edited) 21 hours ago, Seawinder said: She was an early Mk. IX that started life as a Mk. V 7 hours ago, spitfire said: However as the subject was a converted Mk.V it gets even more interesting as the earlier Mk. V walkways may be present. This is a fallacy. It might have been an aircraft built in a production slot originally allocated to Vc manufacture, but it was a Spitfire IX when it was new. There were no service examples of the Spitfire IX which were converted from completed Spitfire V aircraft. *turns out second sentence correct, first sentence possibly incorrect Edited March 8 by Work In Progress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 Not quite. There were no in-service Mk.Vs converted to Mk.IXs, but the first 50 aircraft were passed from Castle Bromwich to RR for conversion without passing through RAF hands. It seems that a similar case, but without requiring transfer, applies to the first 50 Mk.IXs from Supermarine. Both of these batches had individual cowlings different from those of production Mk.IXs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spitfire Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 According to "Spitfire the History" (page 307 onwards) there was Vc conversions to IX, RR carried out conversions at Hucknall were it is reported that 300 conversions were completed and as above the cowlings were different to production IX's. See lots of Edgar threads for more details. Cheers Dennis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Work In Progress Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 Ah, I stand corrected then. What a waste of effort and material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 Not that much. The engines were by far the most valuable (in time and effort and material) and like the propellers, cowlings and support structure they will all have gone into store for use as spares. Or indeed back to the production lines for the outstanding Mk.Vs still to be built whilst waiting for production of the Merlin 61s to ramp up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 You're all wrong. And you're all right. Or something like that. Only the first group of airframes supplied by Supermarine for Rolls Royce completion (not really "conversion") included the Mark V style cowling panels. I think this total is 150. While I don't KNOW about Castle Bromwich airframes, these would have been later and probably would not have again required modification of Mk V cowling panels. (Rolls Royce turned some CB F.IXs into LF.IXs- is it possible that this got confused with the other work?) The main planes were appropriate to Mk.IX, at any rate, so I don't see why they would have been painted the earlier way, unless someone just did what they were used to doing and hadn't gotten the memo. None of this, of course, actually answers the question of whether or not the lines were retained (repainted). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graham Boak Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 OK bob, but wasn't it pointed out that the F.Mk.IX had the gun camera replaced by the additional cooler inlet, so the wings would not have remained unchanged. There's somewhat more work required there than usually borne in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gingerbob Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 What I mean is that the wing panels supplied were for Mk.IX, not "c wings so could be modified to suit". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spitfire Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 1 hour ago, gingerbob said: The main planes were appropriate to Mk.IX, at any rate, so I don't see why they would have been painted the earlier way, unless someone just did what they were used to doing and hadn't gotten the memo. No problems but this is an example of what I meant about Mk.V walkway lines on an IX, this was the subject of a longer thread here on Britmodeller. Cheers Dennis 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seawinder Posted March 8 Author Share Posted March 8 I found one photo in the Ventura American Spitfires book that shows the starboard wing of what is captioned as an "early production Mk. IX:" the wing walk line, clearly visible, turns the corner back to the trailing edge (presumably) the same as the port side. The serial number isn't visible, so I can't tell whether or not the plane is a Mk. V conversion/completion; but the fact that the lines are there, plus what I've since read online about new Mk. IXs being sent to the units in Tunisia, makes me think they were probably factory painted in desert camouflage and therefore probably had the wing walk lines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duggy Posted March 8 Share Posted March 8 Some photos here, but it is hard to tell? American Spitfires Link -- http://axis-and-allies-paintworks.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?id=4202 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan P Posted March 9 Share Posted March 9 9 hours ago, Duggy said: Some photos here, but it is hard to tell? American Spitfires Link -- http://axis-and-allies-paintworks.com/e107_plugins/forum/forum_viewtopic.php?id=4202 Great set of photos, thanks Duggy 👍 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now